1. High points
    You all seem to hit the point: High points are flexible, depending upon our political definitions. And more: As much as I concur TODAY that the highest point
    Jan 21, 2005 @ 08:07 - Wolfgang Schaub ("Wolfgang Schaub" <Wolfgang.Schaub@...>)
  2. RE: [BoundaryPoint] High points
    I would suggest that yes, it was also the view then. German possessions in Africa were never considered to be part of the nation of German, but simply
    Jan 21, 2005 @ 17:55 - Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
  3. AW: [BoundaryPoint] High points
    All agreed. Remember, however, the issue was the question, rather, when the Meruberg (and the Karisimbi) became de facto and de jure part of Deutsch-Ostafrika,
    Jan 21, 2005 @ 20:02 - Wolfgang Schaub ("Wolfgang Schaub" <Wolfgang.Schaub@...>)
  4. Re: High points
    That may have been the original question, but it perhaps couldn t have been asked or be taken seriously - if we say occupied territory is in or becomes an
    Jan 22, 2005 @ 03:01 - L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
  5. AW: [BoundaryPoint] Re: High points
    It couldn t have been taken seriously if the U.S. sector of Berlin was a part of the U.S. ? This is, I am sorry, just a semantic issue. There was much of
    Jan 22, 2005 @ 09:08 - Wolfgang Schaub ("Wolfgang Schaub" <Wolfgang.Schaub@...>)